Su-35 BM Testing and Evaluation Thread

Originally posted by Darkpr0
Check this out.




More photos

These are claimed to be pictures of the remnants of the crashed Su-35BM bort '903'. There's 7 pictures in total, and the a/c is completely torched. Cockpit isn't even attached anymore and the paint job is nonexistent, so we get no clues as to how it looked prior to becoming shrapnel, unfortunately. Enjoy.

Pr0

It's actual bort number was 904, IIRC.

903 was a static test airframe.

Luckily, Yevgeny Frolov (you remember him when he flew the jaw-dropping maneuvers and stole the show @ Farnborough back in April '96 in the Su-37 Terminator) ejected and survived.

Originally posted by ironfalcon

It's actual bort number was 904, IIRC.

903 was a static test airframe.

There's been some muck-ups finding out the bort numbers on these aircraft. I know for sure that Su-35-3 was the static test and Su-34-4 was the wreck, but it's not yet fully clear whether Su-35-3 received a bort tag. The links leading to the picture find reports it as '903', and until we find pictures of the static test's bort number I figure that the person with the pictures knows better than I do which one was which . We'll eventually find out when we get pictures of the next prototype, though, so I guess we'll find out in due time.

reply to post by Darkpr0


I got a pic of the crashed 35BM whilest being under construction:



i214.photobucket.com...

Bort number is clearly visible.

The static AC has the bort number 903.

reply to post by James R. Hawkwood


Nice find on the pic

That's pretty definitive, I'd say that bort '904' is the crashed one and the static test craft was, in fact, '903'. Kind of saddens me that 904's paint job matches 902, but I suppose it's better than the one that 901 was sporting . Hopefully we'll see 905 out of the factory pretty quick.

Originally posted by Darkpr0
reply to post by James R. Hawkwood

 

Nice find on the pic

That's pretty definitive, I'd say that bort '904' is the crashed one and the static test craft was, in fact, '903'. Kind of saddens me that 904's paint job matches 902, but I suppose it's better than the one that 901 was sporting

. Hopefully we'll see 905 out of the factory pretty quick.

Thanks and all that but, you realy dont like the paintjob? Gues it is due to you being used to the bland grey paintjobs on the F-XX planes and all. This paintjob beats the boring bland grey paintjob but hey, thats just my honest opinion.

Oh yeah before i forgot. A couple of months ago Sukhoi did some routine testing and it appears that this big fella is able to Super-Cruise!

I cant wait for this bird entering service together with the MiG-35 and PAK FA.

reply to post by James R. Hawkwood


It look spretty bad but ive seen some pics of airframes with it and flying against mixed terrain and its pretty effective actually.

Aestetics aside, why would you have an airframe still under construction painted? Most are almost always green and the paint comes later

Originally posted by solidshot

Originally posted by Darkpr0
That was pretty quick for 100 flights. The aircraft seems to be on the fast track to introduction and use. Good for them

.

The fact that they seem to be in a hurry with the testing could surely be due to this? also how will this aircraft really compare to the western equivalents?

Last year, the Kremlin set out plans to increase spending on Russia's armed forces over the next two years. Russia will spend nearly $140bn (£94.5bn) on buying arms up until 2011.

BBC

How does this compare to western fighters? When stealth became common knowledge in the late 1980's, other manufactors in particular Russia at first coulden't match us. So they emphasized manuverability over stealth. This approach has it's fans. The SU-35 is more manuverable then both our new F-22 and JS-35. This is most usefull when an aircraft is with in visiual range. Our aircraft are optimized for attack beyond visual rage. Once they see each other we use the M-61 Vulcan cannon, the Russians use their copy of our M-61. Then you need old fashioned dog fighting skills. The Russians figured this out and developed their own version of "top gun". I have seen them in action and they are very good.

I always felt there was a flaw in the idea stealth would solve all our problems. At the end of the day we need to consider all aspects of fighter performance, and not rely on one technology to save our butts.

Didn't the Su-27 have supercruise? I'm fairly sure it could sustain low supersonic flight without afterburner.

I'm not really sure why this feature should be very useful, though.

For air-to-air BVR engagements I should think the best strategy is to have the biggest (longest range), fastest air-to-air missile and awacs support.

Barring awacs support, you'd probably want to very quickly minimise your velocity after you launch your own missile until the missile's active homing can pick up final approach. Then quickly turn about face and flee on afterburner and hopefully have the bogeys he's already launched run out of kinetic energy before they can intercept you.

At least, that's how I did it when I had time for flightsims.

[edit on 11-8-2009 by SonyADbis]

Most legacy aircraft could super-cruise in some conditions, like when they have all the munitions removed while being low on gas. It's nice but there is not much actual difference between Mach 0.95 and Mach 1.02.

Barring awacs support, you'd probably want to very quickly minimise your velocity after you launch your own missile until the missile's active homing can pick up final approach.

Typically you want to maximize the distance between you and the enemy - usually done by flying at the largest angle possible without breaking lock (usually about 60 degrees). It's a massive advantage for aircraft with ESA radars that can be swiveled - the Su-35BM for example can fly AWAY from the target while guiding its own missiles for the kill. If the F-22 even gets the cheek arrays then it will be abled to do this. IIRC, with even more modern aircraft (F-35 / Eurofighter / others w/ good datalinks) it's possible to get friendlies to guide your own missile.

Try searching for "F-pole".

EDIT: EF does it too. Thanks Harlequin.

[edit on 12/8/2009 by C0bzz]

the RAF Typhoon allready did that cobzz:

www.defencetalk.com...

The objective of the testing was to fire the AMRAAM missile from a Eurofighter Typhoon whilst its radar was in passive mode and thus “invisible” for Electronic Support Measures (ESM) Systems. The necessary target data for the missile was acquired by the radar of a second Eurofighter Typhoon and transmitted using the Multi Functional Information Distribution System (MIDS). Both aircraft were separated by quite a distance in range

Originally posted by C0bzz
Most legacy aircraft could super-cruise in some conditions, like when they have all the munitions removed while being low on gas. It's nice but there is not much actual difference between Mach 0.95 and Mach 1.02.

As far as I know, the Su-27 could sustain low supersonic flight (at least Mach 1.1~1.2, if I remember) on military power with air to air ordnance and full internal fuel load(around 9 tons, if I remember correctly. Indeed, I just checked wikipedia and it says 9.4 tons).

Typically you want to maximize the distance between you and the enemy - usually done by flying at the largest angle possible without breaking lock (usually about 60 degrees).

Most air2air missiles are powered by solid propellant, correct? They've only got a precious few seconds of fuel time during which they must quickly gain velocity and altitude so they can glide the rest of the way to the target.

I should think launching at 60 degrees off target would reduce the missile engagement envelope considerably with burn time lost in changing heading. So at least till you launch you need to be facing your foe or whatever angle is optimum for a firing solution.

And even afterwards, what good is supercruise in the engagement? So you can close down the gap to the bogeys the enemy aircraft launched at you, faster?

Isn't it a far better proposition to slow down as much as possible right after having launched? Barrel Roll at high AOA, if the pilot can take it, should do the trick. Just not too high an AOA or you'll break lock.

Even at 60 degrees off target, you're still closing on him fast, especially in supercruise.

Why would you want to fly into his missiles?

It's a massive advantage for aircraft with ESA radars that can be swiveled - the Su-35BM for example can fly AWAY from the target while guiding its own missiles for the kill. If the F-22 even gets the cheek arrays then it will be abled to do this. IIRC, with even more modern aircraft (F-35 / Eurofighter / others w/ good datalinks) it's possible to get friendlies to guide your own missile.

Indeed.

[edit on 12-8-2009 by SonyADbis]

[edit on 12-8-2009 by SonyADbis]

As far as I know, the Su-27 could sustain low supersonic flight (at least Mach 1.1~1.2, if I remember) on military power with air to air ordnance and full internal fuel load(around 9 tons, if I remember correctly. Indeed, I just checked wikipedia and it says 9.4 tons).

As far as I've read, only upgraded Sukhois such as the BM can accomplish that.

I should think launching at 60 degrees off target would reduce the missile engagement envelope considerably with burn time lost in changing heading. So at least till you launch you need to be facing your foe or whatever angle is optimum for a firing solution.

RIF.

AFTER missile is launched, turn. Last I heard it was a real life tactic.

And even afterwards, what good is supercruise in the engagement? So you can close down the gap to the bogeys the enemy aircraft launched at you, faster?

I don't disagree.

Even so, missiles launched at high speeds and altitudes will have a kinematic advantage over one that isn't. For an extreme example...



To answer your question - in super cruise I can bug out if I need to, I can fly very fast and high, and I have an aircraft that has a huge amount of excess power. I can fly supersonic with far less fuel penalty and lastly, my weapons can also fly for much further. Obviously I don't want to be flying supersonic towards enemy missiles, you're putting words in my mouth.

Isn't it a far better proposition to slow down as much as possible right after having launched? Barrel Roll at high AOA, if the pilot can take it, should do the trick. Just not too high an AOA or you'll break lock.

Maximizing F-pole is all about keeping as large of a distance as possible from the enemies missiles, while bleeding the enemies missiles energy, all while guiding your own missiles for the kill. Bleeding energy from gliding weapons is easy - you have to make it turn. How do you make it turn? By changing direction - fast. When slow you become AoA limited rather than G limited and thus cannot change direction (accelerate) as fast, nor can you bug out if you need to.

Speed is life.

AoA is irrelevant, as long as the nose is within 60 degrees of the target with most radars, lock will be maintained. Of course, ESA radars loose performance when high off boresight....

Why would you want to fly into his missiles?

You tell me, I never said that.

[edit on 13/8/2009 by C0bzz]

Originally posted by FredT
reply to post by James R. Hawkwood

 

It look spretty bad but ive seen some pics of airframes with it and flying against mixed terrain and its pretty effective actually.

Why does it look bad? I find it very beautifull and makes the AC much more appealing.

Aestetics aside, why would you have an airframe still under construction painted? Most are almost always green and the paint comes later

Maybe it is final assemblage or some afterwork tweaks or something like that. Maybe also testing the resilience of the paint whilest people are working on top of it. Who knows?

Also: 48 to 60 35BM's are going to be bought. Propably more if Russian economy is going to improve.

Originally posted by arbitureHow does this compare to western fighters?

The 35BM? I must say that it is slightly better then the EF-2000 and has an airframe that has been proven to be very good. I would say that it is the best 4.5th gen AC out there.

When stealth became common knowledge in the late 1980's, other manufactors in particular Russia at first coulden't match us.

Russia did manage to match US developments in stealth but where plagued by cash shortages and eventualy, the breakup of the Soviet Union. If the latter didnt happen then Russian stealthy fighters would be in service earlier then American ones.

So they emphasized manuverability over stealth.

Realy? Instead of soley foccusing on maneuvering they also went for improving the stealth capabillities. I must admit it wasnt radar stealth but stealth on the infa-red and visual fields.

This approach has it's fans.

For obvious reasons because you dont focus soley on radar stealth.

The SU-35 is more manuverable then both our new F-22 and JS-35. This is most usefull when an aircraft is with in visiual range.

That is very true indeed. The TVC nossels on the 35BM have a greater degree curve then the ones on the F-22.

Our aircraft are optimized for attack beyond visual rage.

Aside from F-22 missing IRST sensor and not having ultra long range weaponary i must agree.

Once they see each other we use the M-61 Vulcan cannon, the Russians use their copy of our M-61.

Silly you, Russian planes dont have miniguns but have high powered auto-cannons.

Even caliber is diferent: 20mm VS 30mm

Then you need old fashioned dog fighting skills. The Russians figured this out and developed their own version of "top gun". I have seen them in action and they are very good.

That is very nice to hear.

I always felt there was a flaw in the idea stealth would solve all our problems. At the end of the day we need to consider all aspects of fighter performance, and not rely on one technology to save our butts.

Aaaaaaah! An enlightend spirit and mind. Thats good. Very, very good indeed.

Originally posted by James R. Hawkwood
Realy? Instead of soley foccusing on maneuvering they also went for improving the stealth capabillities. I must admit it wasnt radar stealth but stealth on the infa-red and visual fields.

Some radar stealth changes were implemented. IIRC they lengthened the duct to the engines and coated both the intake and fan blades in RAM coating. While not a massive airframe change I suspect that it still significantly cut the Flanker's frontal RCS. Canards were cut and several flight control surfaces were also made smaller to reduce reflecting surface and their function partially offloaded onto the TVC.

Could be wrong on some of this, though, the last time I read into it was some time ago.

[edit on 8/14/2009 by Darkpr0]

The 35BM? I must say that it is slightly better then the EF-2000 and has an airframe that has been proven to be very good. I would say that it is the best 4.5th gen AC out there.

Pity it came over 10 years later, won't be fielded in any numbers, and likely doesn't come close in terms of maintainability and interoperability. But yes, very good aircraft, good kinematics and a very powerful flashlight to shine in peoples eyes.

Russia did manage to match US developments in stealth but where plagued by cash shortages and eventualy, the breakup of the Soviet Union. If the latter didnt happen then Russian stealthy fighters would be in service earlier then American ones.

Baloney.

Also I thought they didn't focus on radar stealth because that would be putting all eggs in one basket? Why would they attempt to get radar stealth if an upgraded current aircraft would do? Why is the PAKFA apparently stealth?

That is very true indeed. The TVC nossels on the 35BM have a greater degree curve then the ones on the F-22.

A greater degree of curve?

And which one is fights clean and can fly at Mach 1.7+ on dry power?

Aside from F-22 missing IRST sensor and not having ultra long range weaponary i must agree.

Why have an IRST sensor when all other aircraft are easily detected with excellent, unparalleled, AESA and RWR, at very long ranges all because they apparently don't focus (or are simply unable to obtain) on radar stealth? The hope that a big PESA radar and IRST will detect these aircraft at significant ranges is merely playing catchup. Long range missiles like what? All I can come up with is the SARH R-33, non-existent R-37 & Novator K-100 and an upgraded R-27 with R-77 seeker?

I always felt there was a flaw in the idea stealth would solve all our problems. At the end of the day we need to consider all aspects of fighter performance, and not rely on one technology to save our butts.

For obvious reasons because you dont focus soley on radar stealth.

F-22 relies on fantastic avionics, large air to air payload, fantastic stealth, fantastic sensors, fantastic super-cruise, fantastic weapons, very good maneuverability and limited IR reduction. F-35 relies on very good stealth, fantastic avionics, fantastic sensors, fantastic weapons, fantastic interoperability, large numbers, and fantastic range, but stealthy strike fighters should not be compared to the Su-35BM anyway. Hardly focusing solely on radar stealth.

And the Su-35BM focuses on what? Excellent maneuverability, a nice paint job, large air to air payload, marginal super-cruise, loads of fan-boys, nice airshow displays, good sensors and avionics?

[edit on 15/8/2009 by C0bzz]

Originally posted by C0bzzPity it came over 10 years later, won't be fielded in any numbers, and likely doesn't come close in terms of maintainability and interoperability. But yes, very good aircraft, good kinematics and a very powerful flashlight to shine in peoples eyes.

Well, the 35BM isnt intended to be the mainstay of the VVS and is supposed to be supporting the PAK FA.

Baloney.

Also I thought they didn't focus on radar stealth because that would be putting all eggs in one basket? Why would they attempt to get radar stealth if an upgraded current aircraft would do? Why is the PAKFA apparently stealth?

An upgraded AC can only be upgraded so far on an excisting airframe and a new airframe has to be built. Why not include it with radar stealth to defeat the enemy's radar and detect the others side stealth fighters with the IRST sensors?

A greater degree of curve?

And which one is fights clean and can fly at Mach 1.7+ on dry power?

I am sorry for my bad English at times cobzz. What i meant that the TVC nossels can go further up and down then that on the F-22. The nossels on the 35BM can go 60 degrees or more whilest the F-22 is limited to 45 degrees or slightly more.

I dont know what you meant with the last sentence but indeed, F-22 is a clean fighter that has amazing super-cruise abillity's. That is what you get when you have a 5th gen AC.

Why have an IRST sensor when all other aircraft are easily detected with excellent, unparalleled, AESA and RWR, at very long ranges all because they apparently don't focus (or are simply unable to obtain) on radar stealth?

Well the problem with radar stealth AC is that they arent being spotted well on radar and so you need other forms of BVR sensory to detect the enemy's AC.

The hope that a big PESA radar and IRST will detect these aircraft at significant ranges is merely playing catchup.

Yes, there is catchup in the radar department but the PESA radar on the 35BM is the best one in the world and has mechanical sweep to aid it. IRST is vital when you encounter enemy radar stealth AC.

Long range missiles like what? All I can come up with is the SARH R-33, non-existent R-37 & Novator K-100 and an upgraded R-27 with R-77 seeker?

I dont have an awnser on that so i guess i am wrong on this subject. I might correct it if i get to know the missiles better.


Oh well, at least the 35BM looks better then the F-22

Uhh... the F-22 is the most maneuverable combat fighter currently operational anywhere in the world, period. The F-22 will outmaneuver the Su-35BM all day everyday under combat conditions. An Increment 3.2 F-22A with its AIM-9X/AIM-120D combination, and further developed cooperative electronic warfare suite, will be awesome. Even if the Raptor has to go within Sidewinder range (does not always equate with a visual merge), I would not want to be anywhere near it. At that stage you're looking at an F-22 with half its fuel load, it will be able to gain energy at its pleasure. It will also out turn, climb, and out accelerate any combat loaded Flanker variant.

Furthermore, F-22A pilots can usually enter a merge still undetected because they have the leisure of being very, very, stealthy, in all spectrums. This allows them time to actually plan an attack and maneuver in a favorable position to prosecute. Meanwhile the enemy pilot is sweating and trying to figure out where the bandits that shot down half his flight are. There have been cases where Raptors have entered the merge undetected, killed with their AIM-9s, and proceeded to go in and get undetected gun kills.

Also, sustained mach 1.8 @ 65,000 ft, with phenomenal situational awareness, phenomenal ECM/ECCM, and superb VLO characteristics, means the F-22 can disengage any attack and safely disappear back into the abyss.

Another thing to keep in mind, doing mach 1.5 @ 50,000 ft upon release gives the current AMRAAM a 50% increase in range. Now imagine what Mach 1.8 at 60,000 ft does. And the AIM-120D is expected to have an effective range somewhere near 100 statue miles.

You really cannot compare a 5th generation fighter with an existing platform. It's not fair to the Su-35 nor to this thread. Anyway, it is still a very capable aircraft that's also very easy on the eyes.

[edit on 15-8-2009 by WestPoint23]

Originally posted by C0bzzPity it came over 10 years later, won't be fielded in any numbers, and likely doesn't come close in terms of maintainability and interoperability. But yes, very good aircraft, good kinematics and a very powerful flashlight to shine in peoples eyes.

And the F-22 is fielded in any numbers?

That is very true indeed. The TVC nossels on the 35BM have a greater degree curve then the ones on the F-22.

A greater degree of curve?

He meant they can swivel more. And in two directions. Not just pitch but also yaw. A bit more respect for your interlocutors would do.

And which one is fights clean and can fly at Mach 1.7+ on dry power?

You're talking out your chaff and flare orifice. I suggest you look up the Al-41F engine.

Why have an IRST sensor when all other aircraft are easily detected with excellent, unparalleled, AESA and RWR, at very long ranges all because they apparently don't focus (or are simply unable to obtain) on radar stealth?

Because it's entirely passive? And affords great detection and tracking range when you're behind your target with the sun behind you?

The hope that a big PESA radar and IRST will detect these aircraft at significant ranges is merely playing catchup. Long range missiles like what? All I can come up with is the SARH R-33, non-existent R-37 & Novator K-100 and an upgraded R-27 with R-77 seeker?

Radar technology is not stagnant and is far cheaper to develop and put into service thus making playing catchup to stealth more feasible than redesigning your stealth aircraft every few years trying to wedge in a little more stealth to compensate for the stealth you lost to advancements in detection and tracking technology. Also, there's always the brute force approach with AWACS or ground radar simply burning through your stealth. And IRST, if you can see the raptor's arse.

And all you can come up with is three missiles? Including the R-33 and K-100? Downplaying much? I'm sure they'll put the R-37 in service in due time.

And the Su-35BM focuses on what? Excellent maneuverability, a nice paint job, large air to air payload, marginal super-cruise, loads of fan-boys, nice airshow displays, good sensors and avionics?

Marginal supercruise? Bull.

And the F-22 is fielded in any numbers?

183 is about 3 times the Su-35BM projection and on top of that the F-22's will be fighting with hundreds of Eurofighters, all networked to other assets. If you want to make the case that 183 5th generation air dominance fighters cannot dominate 60 upgraded 4++ generation aircraft, then be my guest.

He meant they can swivel more. And in two directions. Not just pitch but also yaw.

I knew what he meant. Since when do people compare aircraft based on how much the nozzles can swivel? In any case the lack of a HMD on the F-22 may be a disadvantage, especially because much of the "mistake planes" with different avionics preclude many upgrades. If I recall correctly, only about half of the fleet will get JHMCS some time in the future.

You're talking out your chaff and flare orifice. I suggest you look up the Al-41F engine.

Oh, I did. The closest I could come up with was Carlo Kopp who conceded that it's kinematic performance could not come close to the F-22. In any case, since when would adding some composites and some powerful engines make a plane instantly in the range of the F-22? Did it happen with the F110-GE-132 F-16, did it happen with the F100-PW-229 F-15... can brand new clean sheet aircraft designed from the outset for super-cruise like the Eurofighter do it? All of them bar Eurofighter can only marginally super-cruise when clean, why is the Su-35BM much different?

Because it's entirely passive? And affords great detection and tracking range when you're behind your target with the sun behind you?

I never said IRST is useless, which is why almost all new aircraft have it. The real question is, does the F-22 NEED it? As it stands, it will always be flying with a massive situational awareness advantage from datalinks and a fantastic AESA radar, on top of its own significantly reduced RCS. The threat aircraft will have a comparatively large RCS, and an inferior yet still highly capable PESA radar. Putting IRST on, when flying essentially blind is almost a prerequisite, just like what happened with the N001 radar on the original Su-27. Point is, why is it a disadvantage when there is no requirement for it?

[edit on 16/8/2009 by C0bzz]